[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on8.3 Specified Transfers

[John Curran]

On Feb 17, 2012, at 11:49 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

> I support this proposal and think it should be made known to this list that there is a currently a seller looking to sell a legacy /8.
> 
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2012/2/14/4998075.html
> 
> I believe this group must come together to recognize the disconnect between ARIN policy and the law when it comes to legacy addresses.

As I noted in the reply to that article, ARIN's ability to maintain 
the registry accordingly to community policy has not been impacted 
by any attempts by parties to the contrary; if there's a disconnect,
it is not in the manner in which ARIN is operating.

> I have asked before and ask again, what is to happen to ARIN Whois authority when a well-bankrolled entity legally sells/buys legacy addresses with no regard to ARIN policy?

ARIN has no difficulty maintaining the registry appropriately; as an aside,
one might consider instead what precisely is being conveyed if it supposed to 
be a number block which is unique with respect to others in the registry, but 
actually isn't complying with the rules of the registry needed to keep it unique?

To follow up one point: you note that the 'disconnect' is with respect to 
legacy addresses, are you proposing that the elimination of needs-based
justification be just for legacy addresses, or all address blocks, ARIN-
issues and legacy?  (While there may indeed be ARIN issued blocks which 
are potential for the market, these are far less likely at least initially
as they were all issued over the years with tighter needs-based assessments
and generally to organizations that intended to fairly quickly put them into
operational networks.)

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN